Heresy in the Roman Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungApologist3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because I believe the Reformation-age Catholics being wrong on any number of theological points. Thus in apostacy rather than heresy, I guess.

Now, I’m a flexible kind of Lutheran so I hold neither us nor you 100% guilty of the acrimonious break-up. However, in many ways I consider the Lutherans and Anglicans as (not perfect! Only God is perfect!) the direction the renaissance Church should have morphed into.
And in that sense I do consider myself a fairly devout Evangelical (Western-but-not-Roman) Catholic.

#toungestillfirmlyincheek
 
Theban said:
Well, like I said it never has happened, and this is pure speculation.
Click to expand...
The problem is who has authority to say that the pope taught heresy?
the case of the current pope is quite revealing. When he says “A”, some will say he did not say “A”, that he is misunderstood by his detractors.
Since there is no authority to confirm the heresy of a pope, the Catholic Church can never officially become a heretic.
 
Last edited:
Mboo said:
the case of the current pope is quite revealing. When he says “A”, some will say he did not say “A”, that he is misunderstood by his detractors.
Click to expand...
More like, when he says “A”, some will say he said “B”.
 
The Church has the authority. The pope is not the only voice in the Church, after all. I learned just earlier today about the case of Pope Honorius, who was post-huminously anathematized for failing to take a stand against the heresy of monothelitism during his pontificate. No pope has ever been condemned by the Church for teaching heresy, because that hasn’t happened, but that doesn’t mean the Church needs to blindly venerate every pope we have had.
 
finally, we do not know what he says officially, because he does not respond to “dubias”, and so he can never become officially heretical
 
The pope is the only infallible authority of the Church, so in his lifetime no one can declare him a heretic. And a pope can never say that another pope has officially taught a heresy, it will simply destroy the papal authority and the very foundation of the Church, they are not stupid …
 
Theban said:
The Church has the authority. The pope is not the only voice in the Church, after all. I learned just earlier today about the case of Pope Honorius, who was post-huminously anathematized for failing to take a stand against the heresy of monothelitism during his pontificate. No pope has ever been condemned by the Church for teaching heresy, because that hasn’t happened, but that doesn’t mean the Church needs to blindly venerate every pope we have had.
Click to expand...
Infallibility does not necessarily prevent the pope from neglecting to condemn error. For that matter the bishops, priests, and laity are also not prevented from neglecting. I doubt the bishops, priests and laity were more neglectful that Pope Honorious at that time.

Infallibility only means that if the pope does teach de fide on Faith and Morals, it won’t contradict the truth. It does not mean he WILL teach the truth. He might be fearful, or he might not know the answer. It only means if he does teach, it is reliable.

We live in a horizontal, anti-authority culture. Egalitarianism is a dogma in the West. We are far more likely to wrongly de emphasize the role of the pope than we are to over emphasize it. For that matter we are more likely to de emphasize the role of the bishop, the pastor, and the parents in the home.
 
I’m not sure I get your meaning. If you believe something about the history of the Church has been corrupted to paint a prettier picture, then please give an explanation and sources as to why you think that is.
 
The worst enemy of truth is not error, but ambiguity. When there is clearly heresy everyone is enlightened enough about it. When it is ambiguous, the one who was in sin finds a very official alibi to stay in his sin.
 
I firmly believe the majority party in any schism, debate etc will frame the history of the past.
Imagine arianism.
Yes, we believe they were wrong.
What would current theology look like if they had carried the day way back? Or the gnostics,
What slurs would have been visited on the non-arian bishops?

It’s not a theology thing, it’s a human trait.
 
Eddie18 said:
There are two different dogmas we are referring to here: the dogma of “infallibility of the Church” and the dogma of “infallibility of the Pope”. They are two different dogmas (though related) and are listed separately in Catholic books.
Click to expand...
The “infallibility of the Church” is one of those concepts I can see in theory, but not as a working practical reality. I get in arguments with Protestants who say we did not need the pope in the early centuries to decide the canon of the NT, because “the Church” chose those documents. Really? Who in the Church? Did the gnostics get a vote? Who had power to reject about 300 possible books from the NT, including many that were revered by some communities? All happened spontaneously!

This reminds me of the MGM musicals from the1940s, where 30 people just happen to start dancing on the street, exactly all in unison, and sure, this was spontaneous. Stuff like this happens every day on your street. No choreographer needed.

The bishops have not really been at all united, nor the clergy. Who would speak for the world’s clergy? Who would speak for, and represent the world’s laity? Would there be a vote of some kind?

For all practical reality, the “Church” is not infallible itself. The Magisterium is infallible, and the Church is infallible only to the extent it is united to the Magisterium.

There is a mythology spread by the websites, that this entity called “The Church” holds the truth, and that on the basis of the template they hold in their bones, can evaluate popes to measure if the pope speaks the truth. They say follow Pope Francis only when he speaks the truth…and the websites will tell you when that is, and when that is not.
 
Last edited:
SnowRose said:
I firmly believe the majority party in any schism, debate etc will frame the history of the past.
Imagine arianism.
Yes, we believe they were wrong.
What would current theology look like if they had carried the day way back? Or the gnostics,
What slurs would have been visited on the non-arian bishops?

It’s not a theology thing, it’s a human trait.
Click to expand...
You firmly believe this? Why?

I do not believe most people will lie simply to make themselves look slightly better, especially if they are so called “winners” of history.

There are certainly times when people have tampered with history, but thanks to scrupulous historians we generally know when that is the case. So if you’re going to argue that an historical fact is flawed, and you want to be taken seriously, then you need to base your argument on more than a simple overgeneralization, and prove why the specific documents cited cannot be trusted.
 
Theban said:
You firmly believe this? Why?

I do not believe most people will lie simply to make themselves look slightly better, especially if they are so called “winners” of history.
Click to expand...
Because I have an MBA and experience in politics and law.
You come across as naive. That’s fine. Enjoy.
 
Reading your posts, I get the impression you are accusing someone of heresy but you won’t come out and say it directly. it is all very ambiguous.
 
The Protestant argument is that “the Church itself” holds infallibility apart from the papacy, because the Church has the Bible. A variation on this is that “the Church itself” holds infallibility because everyone has access to tradition.

This second version does not abolish the infallibility of the papacy past, but does abolish the infallibility of papacy present. Of course some groups say only the church itself, not any Pope infallible since 1958.

Unfortunately both those groups that hold to church itself being infallible are in nonstop internal disagreement and splitting.
 
Last edited:
Mboo said:
the case of the current pope is quite revealing. When he says “A”, some will say he did not say “A”, that he is misunderstood by his detractors.
Since there is no authority to confirm the heresy of a pope, the Catholic Church can never officially become a heretic.
Click to expand...
And unofficially? It seems as though you are suggesting that the only issue here is a legal declaration?
 
Last edited:
mrsdizzyd said:
40.png
Mboo:
the case of the current pope is quite revealing. When he says “A”, some will say he did not say “A”, that he is misunderstood by his detractors.
Since there is no authority to confirm the heresy of a pope, the Catholic Church can never officially become a heretic.
Click to expand...
And unofficially? It seems as though you are suggesting that the only issue here is a legal declaration?
Click to expand...
Well, there is also no agreed-on authority that can unofficially declare the Church or the pope to be heretical. There are lots of unofficial voices, including Protestants, and Catholics mostly on the Left but also on the Right, who have been calling the Pope and/or Church that, about 10 times a day for years. Of course these voices contradict each other, and are never agreed-on. Most of the unofficial voices even contradict themselves.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top